Microsoft suit over FAT patents could open OSS Pandora’s Box

Microsoft has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against TomTom alleging that …

Microsoft has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against navigation device maker TomTom. The suit alleges that several of TomTom's products, including some that are Linux-based, infringe on a handful of Microsoft's patents. Several of the patents in question relate to car computing systems and navigation, but there are also two that cover Microsoft's FAT32 filesystem. If Microsoft begins to systematically enforce its FAT32 patents, it could have broad ramifications for the Linux platform and for mobile device makers.

The lawsuit, which was reported today at Todd Bishop's Microsoft blog, is thought to be the first time that Microsoft has directly targeted Linux with patent litigation. In an interview with Bishop, Microsoft deputy general counsel for intellectual property Horacio Gutierrez claims that this is not the beginning of a broader intellectual property campaign against Linux. Gutierrez characterizes the lawsuit as a last resort option that Microsoft is pursuing after attempting to negotiate a private settlement with TomTom for over a year.

Two of the patents in question are #5,579,517 and #5,758,352 which cover techniques for implementing a "common name space for long and short filenames." The patents basically cover a backwards compatibility hack that Microsoft implemented in its filesystem to preserve compatibility with the filename munging scheme that was used in MS-DOS where filenames were limited to 11 characters in length. The software methods described in the patent are used in modern variants of Microsoft's FAT filesystem.

Microsoft's FAT patents have been vigorously challenged in court, but were finally upheld in 2006. Eben Moglen—a Columbia University law professor and the chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center—once described the FAT patents as a "proverbial Sword of Damocles hanging over the open source community" and warned that Microsoft could use them to do immense damage to the Linux platform. Indeed, Microsoft's filesystem format is used broadly on external storage devices such as camera memory cards.

TomTom publishes a list of GPL-licensed software that is used in the company's products. One of the items on that list is dosfstools, a package of tools that are used to perform various checking and repair operations on FAT filesystems. It's not clear yet if dosfstools itself is the source of the patent infringement, but it seems likely that FAT support in general is problematic. The dosfstools package is also used on Amazon's Kindle, Google's Android platform, and Nokia's Maemo platform.

If Microsoft attempts to broadly enforce this patent against Linux users and vendors, the Open Invention Network (OIN) might decide to invoke the so-called "nuclear option" and retaliate with its own massive arsenal of software patents. The OIN, which was founded to assemble a defensive patent portfolio for protecting Linux and some open source technologies, includes patents on basic principles of computing including networking, e-business, and bytecode compilation.

Microsoft has previously made broad threats against the Linux kernel and the broader open source application ecosystem, alleging that the Linux desktop stack infringes on over 200 of the company's patents. These claims have never been substantiated and Microsoft has never disclosed specific details about which patents it believes have been infringed.

Other Microsoft patents that TomTom allegedly infringes inlcude #6,704,032, which covers "Methods and Arrangements for Interacting with Controllable Objects within a Graphical User Interface Environment Using Various Input Mechanisms", and #6,175,789 which covers methods for creating a "Vehicle Computer System with Open Platform Architecture." Microsoft is asking the court for an injunction against TomTom and treble damages for willful infringement.

Bookmark this article for the next time you stumble upon a Microsoft hater online. This is nothing but an anti-competitive power play to limit access to Windows/Microsoft alternatives and force device makers to pay licensing fees to Microsoft to inter-operate with Windows.

It's not as though this technology has any value outside of protecting the Windows monopoly. Device makers don't have much choice but to support one of the TWO file systems Windows supports. Do we want to live in a world where every random device you own implements its own file system? Requires low level file system access drivers if you want to pop out its memory stick and read it on your computer? Do you think they're going to take the time to implement this proprietary file system on OSX? Linux? Some... most, no.

Are we going to let one company own the entire technology industry because they refuse to inter-operate with truly open standards that would allow device makers to not use Microsoft patented technology to read and write files to a disk?

This is truly outrageous. I'm all for a company being able to turn an honest profit but this move would completely stunt the growth of inexpensive computing devices of all kinds. It's a slap in the face to anyone who uses technology. I hope the Obama administration picks up where Clinton left off. Maybe we could fund some of these bank bailouts with some nice hefty fines for illegal abuse of a monopoly?

I just WANT to see the nuclear option get thrown out there. When you realize that FAT is pretty much the only "universal" filesystem out there, I think the EU is likely to step in because Microsoft has been biding its time on acting on supposed "patent infringements" and using its classical monopolistic practices once again!

I just WANT to see the nuclear option get thrown out there. When you realize that FAT is pretty much the only "universal" filesystem out there, I think the EU is likely to step in because Microsoft has been biding its time on acting on supposed "patent infringements" and using its classical monopolistic practices once again!

Originally posted by Billy_ca:You thought DOS was dead, but no, it still continues to make everything suck for everyone.

This isn't about DOS.... nor is it really even about Linux. It's about the fact that the only common file system on SD cards right now is FAT32, and Microsoft holds the keys to the kingdom on that.

I guess I don't understand why TomTom, who should be well aware of this by now, doesn't just license the technology, or use a properly free file system that has a free file system driver available for Windows.

Originally posted by dagamer34:I just WANT to see the nuclear option get thrown out there. When you realize that FAT is pretty much the only "universal" filesystem out there, I think the EU is likely to step in because Microsoft has been biding its time on acting on supposed "patent infringements" and using its classical monopolistic practices once again!

I hate software patents and their constant lingering threat. Do it, bitches. Go after Linux, bring the patents. Then Sun can jump in the fray, then IBM, then Novell, and all the various alliances, and you can clog up the entire planet's court systems until we abandon software patents once and for all. To quote somebody else (name escapes me) "Let the motherf***er burn!" So sick of this b.s. jockeying for position and nonsense talk of portfolio this and defence that. Just burn it all already.

Originally posted by SleepDirt:Device makers don't have much choice but to support one of the TWO file systems Windows supports. Do we want to live in a world where every random device you own implements its own file system? Requires low level file system access drivers if you want to pop out its memory stick and read it on your computer? Do you think they're going to take the time to implement this proprietary file system on OSX? Linux? Some... most, no.

But why is a proprietary file system necessary? Get an ext3 filesystem driver fully working on Windows and Mac OS X and be done with it.

quote:

Are we going to let one company own the entire technology industry because they refuse to inter-operate with truly open standards that would allow device makers to not use Microsoft patented technology to read and write files to a disk?

Maybe Microsoft is intentionally making FAT32 an unattractive proposition so that it will go away forever?

The article seem to imply that it's not FAT32 that's in trouble, but the means of encoding filenames longer than 11 characters. If someone finds a way to do that not using the "Win95" way, they should be in the clear. Or, just use "filename.ext".

Originally posted by dagamer34:I just WANT to see the nuclear option get thrown out there. When you realize that FAT is pretty much the only "universal" filesystem out there, I think the EU is likely to step in because Microsoft has been biding its time on acting on supposed "patent infringements" and using its classical monopolistic practices once again!

I hate software patents and their constant lingering threat. Do it, bitches. Go after Linux, bring the patents. Then Sun can jump in the fray, then IBM, then Novell, and all the various alliances, and you can clog up the entire planet's court systems until we abandon software patents once and for all. To quote somebody else (name escapes me) "Let the motherf***er burn!" So sick of this b.s. jockeying for position and nonsense talk of portfolio this and defence that. Just burn it all already.

While I don't see that scenario playing out ... I must agree that it would be nice for software patents to go away.

SleepDirt, your comment reads like some bizarre FUD rant. You start with some pretty over the top assumptions about what vendors "must" do. and how the whole world is hanging on a precipice if FAT32 isn't supported. I can't even begin to see how TomTom's failure to license FAT32 means Microsoft will "own the entire technology industry".

Maybe you are too young to remember, but Novell used to "own" the fileserver world, and before that IBM did. And IBM has, and continues to have, patents on EVERYTHING.

I've got news for you - there are other low level file formats, and computing technology is faaaar from static. New formats can be implemented, licenses can be taken, etc etc.

What is worth noting is that TomTom created this problem; they seem to want others to take licenses for their proprietary technology that runs on top of Linux, and they want to get software patents of their own to use against competitors like Garmin, but they don't want to pay out when the shoe is on the other foot. Microsoft has been pretty intellectually honest here by declaring that they "have patents and expect to get paid for them".

And this isn't really even close to unique - we've all been reading about how Apple blocked multi-touch on the Googlephone b/c it would have infringed on Apple patents. On the day the iPhone was announced Steve Jobs publicly announced that they had "patented the heck out of " the iPhone technology.

This is pretty normative behavior for an IP based company like Microsoft - Like them or hate them, at least they don't pretend to be something they're not.

Two of the patents in question are #5,579,517 and #5,758,352 which cover techniques for implementing a "common name space for long and short filenames." The patents basically cover a backwards compatibility hack that Microsoft implemented in its filesystem to preserve compatibility with the filename munging scheme that was used in MS-DOS where filenames were limited to 11 characters in length.

Fuck backwards compatibility! The sooner this planet rids itself of every line of code that has to support 8.3 filenames, the sooner we can emerge from the computing dark ages. Any device that depends on FAT32 should suffer a Y2K-level exile and be fed into a reactor core.

Whith this timing, I'd bet that Microsoft is unleashing its FUD dogs on Android while they race to have a version of Windows Mobile that does not suck too badly.

By going against a smallish company (that also seems to be supportive of software patents), they are cheaply firing a resounding salvo against those titanic corporations with lotsa dough in their pockets which are currently ramping up their offer of Linux based devices. Think China Mobile, Vodafone, Telefónica, AT&T, T-Mobile, Samsung, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson, Toshiba, the works.

It is sad that they are trying to derail some extremely advanced software and telecommunications technology with a shitty, 15-year old hack that was needed to breath life on a shitty, 30-year old instead of substituting it for something well done. The stupid American patent system has given them the means to defend themselves from a gigantic army with the equivalent of the proverbial frying pan.

There's no hope for innovation until a reform comes to the American patent system, which it won't from senators that are funded by the largest hi-tech corporations.

Originally posted by Lobotomik:Whith this timing, I'd bet that Microsoft is unleashing its FUD dogs on Android while they race to have a version of Windows Mobile that does not suck too badly.

What FUD? If TomTom is infringing on a patent and not paying the licensing fees, then why shouldn't they be taken to court? TomTom wants to use someone else's technology but not pay for them. Why is that ok?

quote:

By going against a smallish company (that also seems to be supportive of software patents), they are cheaply firing a resounding salvo against those titanic corporations with lotsa dough in their pockets which are currently ramping up their offer of Linux based devices. Think China Mobile, Vodafone, Telefónica, AT&T, T-Mobile, Samsung, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson, Toshiba, the works.

If those companies are using MS tech but not paying for it, then they should pay as well. If they are paying for it, then there's no problem.

quote:

It is sad that they are trying to derail some extremely advanced software and telecommunications technology with a shitty, 15-year old hack that was needed to breath life on a shitty, 30-year old instead of substituting it for something well done. The stupid American patent system has given them the means to defend themselves from a gigantic army with the equivalent of the proverbial frying pan.

Um. If TomTom is so advanced, then why doesn't it use another file system? They chose to use an MS technology and not license it.

quote:

There's no hope for innovation until a reform comes to the American patent system, which it won't from senators that are funded by the largest hi-tech corporations.

You are advocating that a company use someone elses technology and not pay for it. Why would i innovate if people out there could then just take my work and not pay for it?

Where is the incentive for me? What protection do i have to ensure that my inventions can actually be useful for me without being taken and used by others for no cost at all?

What FUD? If TomTom is infringing on a patent and not paying the licensing fees, then why shouldn't they be taken to court? TomTom wants to use someone else's technology but not pay for them. Why is that ok?

The problem with FAT32 is that it's just about the only universal filesystem out there. And MS allowed it to spread everywhere, and once it was entrenched, they started telling everyone that they own it. Why didn't they start enforcing their patents BEFORE FAT32 spread everywhere?

As to the "automobile navigation technologies" that TomTom is infringing on... Yeah, those technologies include such gems as patent #6,175,789: "Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture"...

Originally posted by Metasyntactic:Why would i innovate if people out there could then just take my work and not pay for it? Where is the incentive for me?

Suggesting that nobody would develop software in the absence of patents is disingenuous. The ability to patent software didn't even exist until the early 80s when a court ruling opened a loophole for doing so. Prior to that ruling, the software industry was already extremely vibrant and competitive. In fact, Microsoft already had a very healthy business selling its software for roughly six years before software patents even existed. Clearly, Microsoft did not need patents as an incentive to innovate.

Patents today decrease the incentive to innovate because there are now entire segments of the technology industry where existing patents make it too costly and legally risky to develop new products. As Bill Gates once pointed out, "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."

Originally posted by Lobotomik:Whith this timing, I'd bet that Microsoft is unleashing its FUD dogs on Android while they race to have a version of Windows Mobile that does not suck too badly.

What FUD? If TomTom is infringing on a patent and not paying the licensing fees, then why shouldn't they be taken to court? TomTom wants to use someone else's technology but not pay for them. Why is that ok?

quote:

By going against a smallish company (that also seems to be supportive of software patents), they are cheaply firing a resounding salvo against those titanic corporations with lotsa dough in their pockets which are currently ramping up their offer of Linux based devices. Think China Mobile, Vodafone, Telefónica, AT&T, T-Mobile, Samsung, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson, Toshiba, the works.

If those companies are using MS tech but not paying for it, then they should pay as well. If they are paying for it, then there's no problem.

quote:

It is sad that they are trying to derail some extremely advanced software and telecommunications technology with a shitty, 15-year old hack that was needed to breath life on a shitty, 30-year old instead of substituting it for something well done. The stupid American patent system has given them the means to defend themselves from a gigantic army with the equivalent of the proverbial frying pan.

Um. If TomTom is so advanced, then why doesn't it use another file system? They chose to use an MS technology and not license it.

quote:

There's no hope for innovation until a reform comes to the American patent system, which it won't from senators that are funded by the largest hi-tech corporations.

You are advocating that a company use someone elses technology and not pay for it. Why would i innovate if people out there could then just take my work and not pay for it?

Where is the incentive for me? What protection do i have to ensure that my inventions can actually be useful for me without being taken and used by others for no cost at all?

Have you ever read Bill Gates' comments on software patents?

There is a difficult choice to make between proprietary technologies which are widely in use, but may be a ticking time bomb for your business (like fat32) and safer (but less popular) open alternatives. This should serve as a lesson not only to the commercial firms like TomTom, but open source developers - Microsoft does have the right to enforce their patents, and they will on occasion do so. Stay far clear.

Why would Tom Tom need to use the FS? I mean it is a closed system, not exactly a file transfer device, right? If they want to store their own files, and that they are using Linux, why can't they use a FS that Linux use instead of MS?

It seems that they chose it, for whatever reason. Once they were informed, they don't think it will be enforce and/or too much effort/too lazy to change. Too bad.

Those who want to shoot MS on this should come out and shoot say Apple for their bragging on their patents on multitouch and other IPs, IBM, the biggest IP filer, etc.

This is pretty bad. Aside from software patents being pretty bad to begin with, it would really make things more difficult for consumers. FAT32 is the only file system supported by all operating systems natively so consumer electronics rely on it. Even though this is a small part of a larger lawsuit, this is a perfect example of IP laws getting in the way of innovation. This is why we need comprehensive patent and copyright reform.

As for the "they can just use a different file system" people, that would require installing third party file system drivers on current versions of Windows, and not everyone has admin rights to the computers they use daily. Installing ext2/ext3 (or many of the other available free file systems) on a library or work computer is not an option for 99% of the people who use them, and it's pretty much impossible to retrofit support into other devices.

That said, retaliation from the OIN could be a very good thing. If enough people start muddying the waters with tons of software patent suits because of this, the courts will eventually get tired of it all and just invalidate all of them.

From what I remembered, it is not exactly FAT-32 but the translation of the name to 8.3

According to MS website, it was awarded in Dec 2003, and the royalty of US$0.25 (yes a quarter) per device, caps at US$250,000 maximum royalty per license agreement. This to me isn't onerous. I mean, if the manufacturer sells more than 1 million device you pay less than a quarter. Too bad TomTom deem that a quarter is too much to pay.

Why would Tom Tom need to use the FS? I mean it is a closed system, not exactly a file transfer device, right? If they want to store their own files, and that they are using Linux, why can't they use a FS that Linux use instead of MS?

Because the user transfers files from his computer to the navigator (and vice versa, I would guess). So they need a filesystem that both the navigator and the users computer understands. And since the computer is most likely running Windows, FAT32 is that filesystem.

Sure, they could use some Linux-FS instead, but since Windows does not understand those filesystems, it would be an extra hassle for the user to get it working.

To those who ask "why now?!?", my understanding has been that Microsoft has been "protecting" FAT32 related patents for a while.

I know someone who used to work for a major manufacturer of hard drives, who also sold external drives of the USB/Firewire variety. Around 5 years ago he mentioned to me that Microsoft had knocked on their door, because the drives were shipped pre-formatted with FAT32. So this manufacturer used a setup where a "genuine" Windows box would format a drive of the required capacity, and this master would then be imaged onto every drive. Obviously this is a technicality in the extreme, but that's what was required to comply with the patents.

I'm sure it wasn't their ideal solution, of course, they'd probably have rather used a Linux box, or just generated the image algorithmically. There's been a few cases of pre-formatted drives shipping with viruses, malware, porn, whatever... likely because it's a Windows box generating that master image.

All that being said, it just kills me that there are so many OSS filesystems, NONE of which are supported out of the box by the machines that comprise 90% of the consumer market (i.e. just the people who don't wanna install a !#&*^%^&@ filesystem).

Therefore, my favorite solution is that the consumer electronics companies get together, decide on an OSS filesystem (ext4, say), and collaborate on a CLEAN SHARED driver/installer. Any new such device gets installed on Windows, it checks for the shared driver, and installs if necessary. The few users who notice/complain should be given a form letter describing Microsoft's tactics vis-a-vis FAT32 or NTFS. Almost every PC will end up with ext4 support because the first iPod, TomTom, Maxtor, Canon, USB Flash, etc, they connect will install the driver.

Eventually either this process will become so smooth as to be unnoticable, or, Microsoft will relent and start bundling ext4 (or whichever) with Windows.

Microsoft CAN be bludgeoned into submission, even with their desktop market share. There was a time when they thought they could take on HTML with their own proprietary version.

I, for one, am sick of trying to decide whether I need to store >4GB files on an external drive, in which case I need to decide which machines I want it to play nice with... windows (NTFS), mac (HFS), or Linux (ext) ... and which I am willing to go installing some unsupported driver. ("But NTFS-3G seems to work for me!"... yeah it SEEMS fine, but it just doesn't give me warm fuzzies given that these are usually backups... is all the redundant data correct? journals? forward compatibility? )

P.S. I propose this solution because, even if TomTom pays, even if Microsoft stops enforcing FAT32 patents... it's STILL a crap filesystem. It's NOT what I want to use to store 100's of Gigs (soon to be several TB) of archive data!!

I truly hope this will start a war Microsoft cannot win. Either Microsoft will lose control of FAT32, or the world will finally see wide-spread use of a free, universal open-source filesystem thanks to Microsoft's foolish galvanizing of the issue.

From what I understand all of Tom Toms competitors are paying this licence fee (of approx $0.25 per device, capped at $250,000 p.a.), and so they are getting a small competitive advantage from not agreeing a licence. No-one has forced them to use FAT with long file name support, and Microsoft has been in negotiation with them over this for some time. They could quite easily use ext3 or some such, but that's not what their customers want. That proves that VFAT is valuable, and if it is valuable, and covered by patent, then they should pay.

The problem here is software patents in total. This is what their existence leads to, and that's the system the US has chosen (or fallen into). You've made your bed, now lie in it.

I'm sure Tom Tom seek to enforce their own software patents against their competitors, so I see no reason why they should see themselves as exempt from them.

Um. If TomTom is so advanced, then why doesn't it use another file system? They chose to use an MS technology and not license it.

If you can get as far as asking this question, getting to the answer isn't that hard. It doesn't take being advanced to use one of the many free file systems, particularly if your system already is based on Linux.

They chose FAT not because it's easier, but because they need to be able to interoperate with Windows computers. Having users install a driver for a memory card -- when every other vendor on the planet does NOT require users to install a driver -- is not viable. So they need to use FAT to be able to sell a device compatible with Windows, so effectively Microsoft wants them to pay 25c per device for Windows compatiblity.

I mean I can see Microsofts position here, obviously it's really nice to get a MS tax from every computer OEM (Dell etc), and to get a (albeit much smaller) tax for a huge amount of all electronics on the market is a very nice proposition. All that for the innovation of a hack to get an oddly broken legacy FS to have more than 8.3 filenames.

But apart from the fact that this particular patent is as laughable as so many are, this wouldn't be a big issue if it weren't for the fact that Microsoft still clearly has a market dominating position when it comes to operating systems, so NOT being able to interoperate with Windows to the same degree as a competitor is just not something a vendor can do.

Of course, as has been noted before, this is not just about that one patent, and TomTom is far from one of the good guys when it comes to IP.

I hate to defend Microsoft but they do have a point. FAT32 is their intellectual property and they have every right to protect their property. While others may view it as anti-competitive it is business.

The Makers of TOM TOM chose to use technology that they did not own, nor seek permission to use and now they're paying the price.

There is a lot of attention given to the FAT patents, but not to patent 6,704,032, which is essentially a patent covering using GUIs for any kind of input for any electronic device. That presumably would include computers, cellphones, printers, cameras, etc., etc.

If in fact this about a legitimate defence of 'intellectual property rights', MS will have to go after Garamin, any cellphone manufacturer whose phones can display any kind of form for input which affects the phone's function in any way, as well as virtually all other makers of handheld devices (the patent is definitely not meant to be limited to handheld devices.) with interactive GUI's that use any imaginable kind of form for user input.

Something I haven't seen anyone mention yet anywhere is that the patents in question are close to expiring. Patents are only good for 17 years from date of filing, and the first one I looked up here was filed in 1995. That means if MS expects to collect any free money on this half-assed hack they managed to get patented, they gotta get a move on. That patent is 14 years old already.

Therefore, my favorite solution is that the consumer electronics companies get together, decide on an OSS filesystem (ext4, say), and collaborate on a CLEAN SHARED driver/installer. Any new such device gets installed on Windows, it checks for the shared driver, and installs if necessary.

Hey - this is similar to how Flash became so ubiquitous. At least initiate it as an option (while still honoring the FAT32 patents) to see how many consumers make the switch.

So maybe this incident will spur some action and device manufacturers can finally move away from the hated FAT file system. It will obviously take time, but over that same time period on-board storage capacity will creep up and people will eventually require a more modern file system anyway.

And if this is to be implemented, go right to ext4 from the get-go. I would suggest also including an option for ZFS, but that might be too ambitious for such an effort.

One point I think the article gets wrong: M$ talks up the possible infringements in Linux simply as FUD-- to discourage vendors from adopting linux-- And as such, it is better for M$ to NOT substantiate these or bring these to court. Resolving these legally would decrease their value as FUD. Also, TomTom is already going bankrupt. M$ uses patent disputes as business strategy- for them its not an issue of rights or protections, at least not if its unprofitable.

While I think this lawsuit is B$ from M$ I also think this article is trying to stir up some penguin lust with it's "directly targeting Linux" line. M$ is not "directly" targeting Linux. They are "directly" targeting TomTom which uses Linux in it's products. That's not "directly" targeting the OS but a single manufacturer that uses that OS.

That aside, this is a bullshit lawsuit over some bullshit patents that should never have been granted in the first place.